Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[quote name='Knoell']You honestly think he was spitting? He was shouting with his hands over his mouth, the video clearly shows this. I would like to know how you spit, but I dont put hands over my mouth and take a good 20 seconds to get it ready for the guy lol
This is a case of say it don't spray it.

But hey let's err on the side of name calling! Those racist spitting bastards![/QUOTE]

I don't recall the last time a person had to wipe their face and collar off because of shouting.

Also, you ignored Cao's constituent's comments. Curious, that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't recall the last time a person had to wipe their face and collar off because of shouting.

Also, you ignored Cao's constituent's comments. Curious, that.[/QUOTE]

You honestly have never wiped your cheek off and told your friend to say it don't spray it? Also what was the guy doing before that particular congressman walked past? spitting at the other ones? Its funny they didn't notice, and you would think the policewoman behind the congressman would have done something because public racist remarks and even spitting can be considered a crime.

Why do his comments matter when the video is clearly not what it claims to be, and the author of the article is clearly trying to portray the guy as being racist by taking his remarks out of context.

But sure lets talk about his comments.
The very act of the Black Congressional Caucus, walking through the tea party people while holding all those videos was an act of provocation. They need this desperately and one last thing. The language that Nancy Pelosi is using about the civil rights movement, comparing the unpopular health care bill to the civil rights movement ties into this… They’re all on the talking points, basically telling black people that the white people are trying to take your health care from you. This is a racial, racist, racially divisive strategy that they’re playing that’s very dangerous in the United States.

The part about walking past the protestors was out of line.

I'm not sure what the "while holding all those videos" meant, so until one of you can explain it, I'm going to skip that part.

You do not agree that Nancy Pelosi is using the comparison of health care and the civil rights movement to rile people up? We all know this bill is not as historic as the civil rights movement, so why compare it? I have to agree with this guy, the left is playing a very dangerous game, and are being racially divisive. I mean look at you all, because I am against this health care bill, and am white, somehow you guys called me a racist.

Since when does the debate of public policy make you a racist?
I haven't heard racism until people started saying "they dont want to give black people health insurance! Get them!"
 
Also there is what I assume to be the congressmans staffer holding up what appears to be a video camera and a mic of some sort and walking not to far ahead of the congressman but definately right past the guy that was shouting while he was shouting, why has that video not been released? The good will of the democrats don't want to stoke the flames? Doubtful since he made the claims publicly anyway.


Edit: And I am not making any claim that there wasn't a few loons who maybe said something racist, you get a few of them in any large group of people. My problem is that you all are taking this video and holding it for all to see as proof that the teaparty is a completely racist movement, quote "more racist than any other politcal movement in history"
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']duh, they arent asking for free gas or subsidized gas.


drill baby drill![/QUOTE]
No, i meant if subsidizing it was the only option.
 
Really? Your favorite thing ever?

obama_bring_back_arrested_development.jpg


You've made a huge mistake.
 
Sorry, race traitors are not considered blacks. They are worse than the white racist supremacists that they align themselves with. And tea party (aka republican party) is the party of racism and bigotry no matter how much they try to hide behind their bogus and debunked issues.
 
Knoell, I said *CAO'S CONSTITUENT'S* comments. Are you deliberately obtuse?

A constituent on Joseph Cao (R-LA):
“He had fundraisers, he had meetings, all in the suburbs — the white suburbs,” said [Kim] Hasney [a photographer from Jefferson Parish], who attended one of those events. “He had nothing in the district. We got him elected. Then, he goes and says ‘but I have to represent my district,’ which is all liberal, giveaway, spread-the-wealth, welfare, black. We thought he would try to change the demographics of that district by supporting things that were not giveaway things. You know, supporting things that would get them out of the ghetto.”
Click to expand...
 
Yeah weird fucking shit Bob lol.

When did conservatives ever say there wasn't a need for any government at all? Wouldn't that be anarchists?
Click to expand...

They're against entitlements, but only the entitlements they don't benefit from.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I have the wonder how many of these people who are against government health care would also object to the government doing anything to lower gas prices. I hear a lot about how it's gettin'hard for the workin' man to afford gas to get to work, hard to believe they'd object to the government doing something to help, but then that would be no different than the government interfering in health care.[/QUOTE]

I am against the government putting in place price controls and the like. As if buying auto manufacturers, nationalizing student loans and threatening company execs who dare to claim the health-care bill will mean extra costs for them isn't enough.

The government can cause fuel prices to decrease with smart policy, while planning for a future without current (finite) fuels. First, we can promote domestic energy production such as offshore drilling, nuclear power and oil shale. Second, we can use R&D seed money to encourage development of feasible alternatives (the national security component of this alone makes it worth the government's attention). Third, we can change CAFE regulations to stop subsidizing less-efficient "light trucks" (also SUVs) as compared to regular cars.
 
About the "nationalizing student loans" thing, the government was providing the money.

The only thing the banks did was rent seeking.

As for the "threatening" companies thing, they didn't "lose" money so much as they weren't able to write off on their taxes money the government fucking gave them.

prince is just like knoell only under a slightly more reasonable facade.
 
[quote name='Msut77']About the "nationalizing student loans" thing, the government was providing the money.

The only thing the banks did was rent seeking.

As for the "threatening" companies thing, they didn't "lose" money so much as they weren't able to write off on their taxes money the government fucking gave them.

prince is just like knoell only under a slightly more reasonable facade.[/QUOTE]

the government was not providing the money in most cases. The government backs the money in all cases and covers defaults or else the banks would not give out the loans in the first place.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Knoell, I said *CAO'S CONSTITUENT'S* comments. Are you deliberately obtuse?

A constituent on Joseph Cao (R-LA):[/QUOTE]

I apologize, I misread. Also I have no idea who this "constituent of Cao" is, and you provided no link.

I want an anwser to my post now. It seems noone has responded to it because....maybe it is reasonable? Maybe the guy was just shouting.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I apologize, I misread. Also I have no idea who this "constituent of Cao" is, and you provided no link.

I want an anwser to my post now. It seems noone has responded to it because....maybe it is reasonable? Maybe the guy was just shouting.[/QUOTE]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023282.php

There ya go sweetie. Read up. Oh, and myke's quote actually did provide the name of this 'constituent of Cao', its clear you didn't read it thoroughly. A simple google search would have revealed she (Kim Hasney) is an awful photographer.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I am against the government putting in place price controls and the like. As if buying auto manufacturers, nationalizing student loans and threatening company execs who dare to claim the health-care bill will mean extra costs for them isn't enough.

The government can cause fuel prices to decrease with smart policy, while planning for a future without current (finite) fuels. First, we can promote domestic energy production such as offshore drilling, nuclear power and oil shale. Second, we can use R&D seed money to encourage development of feasible alternatives (the national security component of this alone makes it worth the government's attention). Third, we can change CAFE regulations to stop subsidizing less-efficient "light trucks" (also SUVs) as compared to regular cars.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='JolietJake']No, i meant if subsidizing it was the only option.[/QUOTE]So yes or no?
 
I got to thinking earlier about the privilege of driving. Since it isn't a right, i think that forcing people to prove the need for owning some huge monstrous automobile (hummers, SUVs etc.) seems reasonable. It isn't infringing on any right, I'd even allow anyone to own one, provided that if they didn't really need it they couldn't drive it on public roads, practically ruling out a purchase. It isn't infrninging on any rights of the citizen that i can think of.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I apologize, I misread. Also I have no idea who this "constituent of Cao" is, and you provided no link.

I want an anwser to my post now. It seems noone has responded to it because....maybe it is reasonable? Maybe the guy was just shouting.[/QUOTE]

And I want a pony. You don't get to avoid points and demand answers.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So you're asking if I think gasoline purchases should be subsidized? Absolutely not.[/QUOTE]
Alright then, that's one, now i just need to ask how ever many other people there are who claim to be a part of the group.:lol:

Honestly though, i bet a lot of them would like anything that lowered gas prices, they just wouldn't think about it in the same way they do health care.
 
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023282.php

There ya go sweetie. Read up. Oh, and myke's quote actually did provide the name of this 'constituent of Cao', its clear you didn't read it thoroughly. A simple google search would have revealed she (Kim Hasney) is an awful photographer.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link to something he wanted me to comment on....must have been tough. Last time I checked we were to provide proof, and documentation for things on here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']And I want a pony. You don't get to avoid points and demand answers.[/QUOTE]


Of course why debate the legitimacy of your original accusation of racism, and let's go right to your second comment first....makes complete sense.

regardless, why is a random person commenting on her representative even relevant in this discussion?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Of course why debate the legitimacy of your original accusation of racism, and let's go right to your second comment first....makes complete sense.

regardless, why is a random person commenting on her representative even relevant in this discussion?[/QUOTE]

Is she a part of the Tea Party and getting very close to making a racial slur?
 
It's a term that predates a whole lot of us and our lives.

The common phrase in the past was that a black person who didn't know their subservient place in society was an 'uppity n*gger'.

Words have historical context, and racist language is coded and hidden in this day and age. We have a lexicon of words we can use to express antiblack racism, like "thug" and "urban." It has enough built-in plausible deniability that persons can say it and pretend to get away with it. But the use of such language consistently over time demonstrates clear racism.
 
According to Dictionary.com, the word doesn't have a recorded use in the sense you're describing until 1880. The use I'm familiar with, "the sense of 'conceited, arrogant'" is claimed to have been used as far back as 1734. You are right that it predates us.

Aside from the series "The Boondocks", I'm not sure I've ever heard it used in conjunction with 'the N word' - but then, I don't tend to associate with a lot of people who use that kind of language...
 
[quote name='Knoell'] regardless, why is a random person commenting on her representative even relevant in this discussion?[/QUOTE]It's ever so ridiculous, and yet, ever so characteristic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Words have historical context, and racist language is coded and hidden in this day and age. We have a lexicon of words we can use to express antiblack racism, like "thug" and "urban." It has enough built-in plausible deniability that persons can say it and pretend to get away with it. But the use of such language consistently over time demonstrates clear racism.[/QUOTE]

Urban

1.jpg



Thug

Al_Capone-2.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's a term that predates a whole lot of us and our lives.

The common phrase in the past was that a black person who didn't know their subservient place in society was an 'uppity n*gger'.[/QUOTE]

I'll bet less than 1% of the people that use and hear this word even know this. Does that make them racist?
 
I am finding it funny that your "proof" video that all tea party people are racist, is now forgotten because you have something new to ride your racism witch hunt on. Scratch that, it is terrifying that you people think this way.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Alright then, that's one, now i just need to ask how ever many other people there are who claim to be a part of the group.:lol:

Honestly though, i bet a lot of them would like anything that lowered gas prices, they just wouldn't think about it in the same way they do health care.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps. I'm sure some people would think that way. It's the same mindset that has led us to TARP, too big to fail and the rest of the bullshit Paulson/Bush/Geithner/Obama/McCain/etc have put us through: oh no, somebody's going to have something bad happen, MY GOD THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO DO SOMETHING!! And of course what they did made things a thousand times worse.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']I'll bet less than 1% of the people that use and hear this word even know this. Does that make them racist?[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't somebody using the term "uppity $$$$er" be racist?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Wouldn't somebody using the term "uppity $$$$er" be racist?[/QUOTE]

I was referring to the word "uppity". The n word is of course racist.
 
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
http://crashtheteaparty.org/

Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them.
Click to expand...

Sounds like something a few of you here would like to get involved with... ;)
 
Wow so if I'm reading this page correctly, our poor children (of all races) have a lot a lot of studying and suffering through indoctrination ahead of them - so that they can properly identify vague historical references to racism that vastly predates them?

Whatever we have to do to keep the divisive cogs of progressive PC churning, I guess.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
http://crashtheteaparty.org/



Sounds like something a few of you here would like to get involved with... ;)[/QUOTE]

I heard this on the news, lol what a joke.

I think the people who made that site hate white people, because the tea party is supposedly all white, so they are campaigning against whites! racist bastards!

What a world this would be if the majority of people used the logic of liberals. lol.

I also looked at his facebook page which is overrun with pro tea party comments...kind of funny how this small minority of crazy racist tea party people are out voicing the "great anti-tea party movement"
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I've always used it in reference to someone who acted as if they were better than everyone else.[/QUOTE]

That's virtually the only way I've ever heard it used. Like I said, I'm pretty sure it was used with the N word on the Boondocks, but I haven't watched the show that much and wouldn't have thought anything about the first part of it without the second half.
 
[quote name='Clarence Thomas']This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.[/QUOTE]

ohai
 
To me it depends on the person being referred too, i've heard it used in conjunction with lots of different subjects. As far as the etymology goes, i have no idea personally.
 
[quote name='IRHari']ohai[/QUOTE]

Likewise, if I heard someone say something about lynching "skinny blacks", I wouldn't think "skinny" was racist.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']To me it depends on the person being referred too, i've heard it used in conjunction with lots of different subjects. As far as the etymology goes, i have no idea personally.[/QUOTE]

etymology has little to do with it, it's more historical usage.

the etymology of "gay" isn't rooted in describing a homosexual person, but that's the primary meaning it has in this day and age.

EDIT: Think of it this way; suppose a congressperson refers to then-Senator Obama as "boy." Do you believe that it is at all plausibly deniable that it is said without any racist background or malice? If so, you're the kind of person who can fool yourself into believing that dog-whistle politics don't exist.

Like these kind of dog-whistle politics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfXvK84MPqQ
 
True, but just because something has a negative historical context doesn't mean it still does. I would even argue it's good to use it in other ways because it separates it more from it's older negative tone. Words and their meanings evolve like anything else.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']etymology has little to do with it, it's more historical usage.

the etymology of "gay" isn't rooted in describing a homosexual person, but that's the primary meaning it has in this day and age.[/QUOTE]

Is there anything wrong with calling someone who's homosexual "gay"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top